Federal Communications Commission DA 13-513
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
One Touch Communications
Complaint Regarding
Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IC No. 10-S0297366
ORDER
Adopted: March 20, 2013 Released: March 21, 2013
By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we consider the complaint1 alleging that One Touch
Communications (One Touch) changed Complainant’s telecommunications service provider
without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainant in violation of the
Commission’s rules.2 We conclude that One Touch’s actions violated the Commission’s carrier
change rules and we grant Complainant’s complaint.
2. In December 1998, the Commission released the Section 258 Order in which it
adopted rules to implement Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended
by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act).3 Section 258 prohibits the practice of
1 Informal Complaint No. IC 10-S0297366, filed January 11, 2010.
2 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100 – 64.1190.
3 47 U.S.C. § 258(a); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996);
Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No.
94-129, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) Section
258 Order), stayed in part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999); First Order on
Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158 (2000); stay lifted, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June 27,
2000); Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996 (2000), Errata, DA No.
00-2163 (rel. Sept. 25, 2000), Erratum, DA No. 00-2192 (rel. Oct. 4, 2000), Order, FCC 01-67 (rel. Feb. 22,
2001); Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC Rcd 5099
(2003); Order, 18 FCC Rcd 10997 (2003); Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 493 (2008). Prior to the
adoption of Section 258, the Commission had taken various steps to address the slamming problem. See, e.g.,
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-
129, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995), stayed in part, 11 FCC Rcd 856 (1995); Policies and Rules
Concerning Changing Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 91-64, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 (1992), reconsideration
denied, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs, CC Docket No. 83-1145,
Phase I, 101 F.C.C.2d 911, 101 F.C.C.2d 935, reconsideration denied, 102 F.C.C.2d 503 (1985).
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-513
2
“slamming,” the submission or execution of an unauthorized change in a subscriber’s selection of
a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service.4 In the Section 258 Order, the
Commission adopted aggressive new rules designed to take the profit out of slamming,
broadened the scope of the slamming rules to encompass all carriers, and modified its existing
requirements for the authorization and verification of preferred carrier changes. The rules
require, among other things, that a carrier receive individual subscriber consent before a carrier
change may occur.5 Pursuant to Section 258, carriers are absolutely barred from changing a
customer's preferred local or long distance carrier without first complying with one of the
Commission's verification procedures.6 Specifically, a carrier must: (1) obtain the subscriber's
written or electronically signed authorization in a format that meets the requirements of
Section 64.1130; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided
exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; or (3) utilize an independent third
party to verify the subscriber's order.7
3. The Commission also has adopted liability rules. These rules require the carrier
to absolve the subscriber where the subscriber has not paid his or her bill. In that context, if the
subscriber has not already paid charges to the unauthorized carrier, the subscriber is absolved of
liability for charges imposed by the unauthorized carrier for service provided during the first 30
days after the unauthorized change.8 Where the subscriber has paid charges to the unauthorized
carrier, the Commission’s rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges
to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of
all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier.9 Carriers should note that our
actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted,
pursuant to Section 503 of the Act.10
4. We received Complainant’s complaint on January 11, 2010, alleging that
Complainant’s telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to One
Touch without Complainant’s authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the
Commission’s rules11 we notified One Touch of the complaint and One Touch responded on
4 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
5 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.
6 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c). Section 64.1130 details the requirements for letter of agency form
and content for written or electronically signed authorizations. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130.
8 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160. Any charges imposed by the unauthorized carrier on the
subscriber for service provided after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscriber to the authorized carrier at
the rates the subscriber was paying to the authorized carrier at the time of the unauthorized change. Id.
9 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1170.
10 See 47 U.S.C. § 503.
11 47 C.F.R. § 1.719 (Commission procedure for informal complaints filed pursuant to Section 258
of the Act); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150 (procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in preferred carrier).
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-513
3
February 15, 2010.12 One Touch states that authorization was received and confirmed through
third party verification (TPV). The Commission’s rules require that the verification elicit,
amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is “authorized to make the carrier
change.” 13 In the TPV at issue in this case, the verifier instead asks whether the person on the
call was “over the age of eighteen and authorized to make changes to the telephone service.” An
affirmative response does not confirm that the person was authorized to make the carrier
change.14 As we emphasized in the Fourth Report and Order, “any description of the carrier
change transaction…shall not be misleading” and verifiers should convey explicitly that “the
consumers will have authorized a carrier change, and not, for instance, an upgrade in existing
service.”15 We find that One Touch’s actions were in violation of our carrier change rules, and
we discuss One Touch’s liability below.16
5. One Touch must remove all charges incurred for service provided to Complainant
for the first thirty days after the alleged unauthorized change in accordance with the
Commission’s liability rules.17 We have determined that Complainant is entitled to absolution
for the charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and
neither Verizon nor One Touch may pursue any collection against Complainant for those
charges.18 Any charges imposed by One Touch on the subscriber for service provided after this
30-day period shall be paid by the subscriber at the rates the subscriber was paying to Verizon at
the time of the unauthorized change.19
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
12 One Touch Communications’s Response to Informal Complaint No. IC 10-S0297366, received
February 15, 2010.
13 See 47 C.F. R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
14 Cf. Consumer Telcom, Inc., Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s
Telecommunications Carrier, IC Nos. 09-S0295686 and 09-S0295918, Order on Reconsideration, DA 12-801,
CGB (rel. May 22, 2012) (“the verifier’s question, “Do you have authority to make changes to your long distance
service?” did not confirm that the person was authorizing a change that would result in receiving service from a
different carrier”).
15 See Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 493 (2008)(emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. §
64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
16 If Complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution of this complaint, Complainant may file a
formal complaint with the Commission pursuant to Section 1.721 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.721.
Such filing will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of Complainant’s informal complaint so long as the
formal complaint is filed within 45 days from the date this order is mailed or delivered electronically to
Complainant. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.719.
17 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(b).
18 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(d).
19 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160.
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-513
4
1.719 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaint filed against
One Touch Communications IS GRANTED.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 64.1170(d) of the
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1170(d), Complainant is entitled to absolution for the
charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and neither
Verizon nor One Touch may pursue any collection against Complainant for those charges.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Nancy A. Stevenson, Deputy Chief
Consumer Policy Division
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau